Loop Quantum Gravity

The inability of scientists to create a theory of quantum gravity arises from long-standing tensions between general relativity and quantum mechanics. There have been few approaches with any success. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains one of the few promising ideas, called loop quantum gravity.
Further reading:
www.einstein-online.info/spotl...
Quantum Gravity: • Quantum Gravity
Full Quantum series: • Quantum Physics

[@poposterous236]

According to loop gravity, the frame rate of the universe is 6 x 10^44 quantum intervals per second. That's 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fps.

[@TheDaddyO44]

...and If that number was seconds it would be way longer than the age of the universe

[@mcw0261]

@@TheDaddyO44 Ooh that's an interesting point!

[@mcw0261]

How did you calculate what represents a frame?

[@Chipchap-xu6pk]

@@mcw0261 I'm guessing he did 1 divided by the minimum time mentioned in the video.

[@engjoserobles]

so the universe is a simulation?

[@andybeans5790]

The only thing more mind-blowing than LQG is trying to imagine the sort of cocktail party that Don frequents.

[@jacobmartin8332]

This made me laugh waaayyy more than it should have.

[@RaoulBorges]

Interestingly, there is a very important, but I fear, very underappreciated, part in this video: ===================================================== Do I believe in Loop Quantum Gravity? No, of course, not. There's no confirming data. But it's a fascinating idea and I'm very interested in finding ways to test it. If Loop Quantum Gravity is real, I'm sure we'll figure it out and, even if it's not, the journey will be fascinating. ===================================================== That's a very good, and very powerful description of what a scientific mindset should be.

[@User-jr7vf]

I totally agree

[@REIwAlexY]

agreed!

[@Jadinandrews]

"I'm very interested in finding ways to test it."

[@GlenHunt]

And a good scientist is one who can tolerate and warehouse a lot of ambiguity, not feeling a need to have "the end-all-and-be-all answer" right now, being interested in seeing where things lead.

[@JeffreyGordon]

I can't thumbs up this enough. So many folks have lost sight in this and treat Science as Religious Gospel and Dogma.

[@Perryman1138]

Does this mean we can finally measure coastlines???

[@JorgeFalconOnline]

It seems...

[@deanalex1345]

TripAdvisor has some great reviews of beaches if that's what you are looking for :)

[@brawnstein]

Hotel?Trivago

[@JavierArveloCruzSantana]

Is this a fractal question? I'd love to hear more. :)

[@danielskaluba5520]

No.

[@FreshBeatles]

Dr. Lincoln, I don't know if you will ever see this, but I want you to know that your way of speaking and body language strangely make you easy to listen to and understand. I would not grasp these subjects as easily if it weren't for you. Thanks

[@tinkmarshino]

LIGHT.. you understand quantum thing a majigs? Damn.. regular physics sometime has my head twisted but quantum gets me chasing my tail so much I am not sure if I am in front or in back.. I am glad you young fellas and gals understand this stuff.. at 66 I find it hard but then I will never need to use it.. But it is fun to learn about.. carry on!

[@RME76048]

"... your way of speaking and body language strangely make you easy to listen to and understand." What's so 'strange' about his way of presenting? He's personable, clear and concise.

[@nullinf]

Totally agree, on the contrast something about the good at PBS Spacetime just is so off-putting when he's explaining some of the material it doesn't help.

[@lunchmind]

I feel the same way about these talks, light. I am indebted to Dr. Lincoln as well.

[@ferdimemelli3858]

Totally agree! I cannot watch PBS Space and Time because the guy there makes it all about himself with his whole set of mannerisms and way of dressing, he is like screaming, "look at me" - very distracting and annoying. Dr. Lincoln is really easy to follow!

[@quahntasy]

Thank goodness someone finally did a video on Loop Quantum Gravity!

[@UniversalSouls]

Why is it so important that someone did a video on this?

[@chrishusted8827]

@@UniversalSouls Its one of the theories to unify quantum theory and General Relativity. To explain gravity.

[@chrishusted8827]

PBS Space Time has one too.

[@ThomasJr]

have you heard of the youtube search field? there's a lot of them

[@tonkroese]

Diffeomorphism Invariance for dummies: what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

[@stevedaniales4695]

Ton Kroese I am a dummy and I’m having an issue understanding how this isn’t just basically false because entangled particles are by definition affected by something non-local?

[@noahjalbuena-cook6877]

@@stevedaniales4695 it's not causal

[@ThomasJr]

Actually, what happens in X stays in X. Lol Now replace X for anything and you have a grand unified theory for that saying

[@Notaweebiswear]

I'm not sure if any of you are big readers but there is an amazing book on Quantum Space by Jim Baggot. He collaborated with some philosophical physicists and explains a lot about this subject. I could see a lot of parts mentioned in this video, great job on the understandable delivery!

[@iridium8562]

Thanks!

[@DCDevTanelorn]

Please don’t let it end here. Quantized space time deserves more videos!!!

[@ccpmustfall6445]

What if General relativity is wrong is just somehow fit to explain those phenomena that we still have yet more data about? Quantum mechanics definitely can't fit with General Relativity. Loop quantum theory throw some of the Quantum Mechanics principles out. Or it can be the other way round where quantum mechanics is wrong about space time. But Im sincerely from my heart hope that general relativity will be wrong. It will create a lot of society problems ffs

[@umairbutt1355]

​@@ccpmustfall6445 It's not right to say it's wrong or could be wrong. It's not wrong, it describes our universe extremely well. However, it is incomplete. This means that there is a more general, higher order description of our universe. This description should "reduce" to general relativity under certain conditions. Just like general relativity reduces to newtonian gravity under certain conditions.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@ccpmustfall6445 THE UNIVERSAL, CLEAR, EXTENSIVE, AND BALANCED PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND WHAT IS THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE.) Accordingly, time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) SO, the EARTH (A PLANET) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in fundamental RELATION to the UNIVERSAL fact that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!!) Therefore, the Earth AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand !! This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA.) Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED in AND out of SPACE AND TIME, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This, in fact, explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes" as well. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Moreover, OBJECTS fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma !!!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!!! By Frank DiMeglio

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@ccpmustfall6445 THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

[@mikkel715]

@@ccpmustfall6445 Agree. Maybe it's our perception of spatial dimensions that are wrong, and so gives a wrong generel theory explanation of spacetime gravity. Not saying spatial dimensions are only properties of particles like time dilation and spin. Or maybe.

[@adamkendall997]

I was at a cocktail party and I used diffeomorphism invariance in a sentence and I got slapped by a lady then ejected from the club. The bouncers used my head to open the door. Did I not use it properly?

[@eval_is_evil]

...huh

[@RME76048]

And where exactly was your gaze directed at the time you uttered diffeomorphism invariance?

[@benjaminmillermusic]

try again! never diffeomorphism invariance give up!

[@alberteinstein1452]

Check your tensor fields :^>

[@mr.h4267]

@@RME76048 Probably looking at her fundamental bits.

[@AliHSyed]

I do love the idea. Although I don't know what's crazier, that space and time are quantized, or that they are absolutely continuous. Confirming either would truly blow my mind.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

[@ThomasJr]

Good question. Maybe this doesn't need to be solved with advanced mathematics, but just with some simple philosophy.

[@ThomasJr]

If there are small particles, space should be the same thing.

[@adibakarlen]

I strongly suspect that space is quantized

[@kinoko384]

@@ThomasJr Why?

[@dachew57]

Dr. Lincoln, thanks for the awesome video. I love learning about our amazing universe, and I really enjoy your presentations. Go physics!

[@entropiauniverseflyovermob4181]

Thank you for your continued work. I look forward to learning more. I came looking for answers and the answer I found was to keep watching and reading. So excited to see what doors of understanding you and your team open.

[@dlbattle100]

But isn't the momentum, and therefore the wavelength, in a juxtaposition of states until it interacts with the measurement device? Why would you expect them to travel at different speeds before that interaction?

[@bruinflight1]

I miss your old intro music... BUT I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!!

[@PublicCommerce]

I think it is appropriate that they use footage of Adderall to illustrate the concept of discrete mathematics.

[@earthbjornnahkaimurrao9542]

Paul Erdos would approve

[@Truemann45]

dude one of the bottles was m. amphetamine and another one was 60mg Morphine lmao. These fermilab quacks are zooming

[@BillAnt]

Add er all!! Add er all!! :D

[@nurk_barry]

I saw that too....orange tablet, amphetamine salts 20mg lol...

[@flowermollitae]

Dr. Lincoln, I love your videos!! Thanks for the explanations. I'll keep watching.

[@Zealot0630]

does the theorem require discrete mass/energy ？

[@jopmens6960]

In this model of loop quantum gravity and quantization, what does the expansion of the universe mean? After a certain period of time, is there a quantum of space added with a new 'calculated amount of energy/information' out of existing spacetime and 'in between' it? Or is there actually inflation of the spacetime itself and wouldnt we measure the smallest unit of space exactly the same the same at different moments in time? If all our units refer to one another do we need to say everything is constant during inflation (and thus corrected), or nothing is?

[@NomenNominandum]

Fermilab does a great job in public education with these videos. Thanks a lot!

[@abgrunder]

Dr. Lincoln rules! I've listened to his TOE course from Great Courses, and it was pure music to me.

[@JoshuaHillerup]

One thing I haven't been able to understand, is does that smallest volume stack like cubes, with all the implications in terms of lengths in different directions, or is it different from that?

[@lando4886]

At 6:17, what does it mean to add mass and energy? Are we adding the two parts together or adding them into an equation?

[@maximkhan-magomedov431]

Does this mean that there is a lower limit for wavelength (and upper limit for frequency)? How will that co-exist with constant speed of light when observer moves towards the light source with edge parameters, when its wavelength cannot be any smaller?

[@billchristie5644]

I would like to see Dr. Lincoln do a video on Rotating Waves. It could be labelled under speculative, but resolves so many of the weird things and explains some of the forces.

[@macbuff81]

I was never good at physics in high school. In fact, I hated it and failed (even though I loved science fiction). However, these and similar type of lectures (also those of Brian Cox) really make sense to me. It really opened up a whole new world to me. Very cool

[@buddychadwick]

Thank you for this contribution to internet knowledge. Too many wanna be experts pushing out material. Nice to see an actual expert make a clear video

[@esperancaemisterio]

Hi Don! Thanks for the great video! What about a video on delayed entanglement swapping? Or Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser? Or one discussing if the simultaneous collapse of the wave function of two entangled photons in a Bell's experiment doesn't imply that the Minkowsky's interpretation of relativity is wrong, and we should maybe adopt Lorentz ether theory? Thanks a lot!

[@frankdimeglio8216]

THE UNIVERSAL, CLEAR, EXTENSIVE, AND BALANCED PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND WHAT IS THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE.) Accordingly, time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) SO, the EARTH (A PLANET) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in fundamental RELATION to the UNIVERSAL fact that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!!) Therefore, the Earth AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand !! This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA.) Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED in AND out of SPACE AND TIME, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This, in fact, explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes" as well. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Moreover, OBJECTS fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma !!!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!!! By Frank DiMeglio

[@XuryFromCanada]

I'm wondering -- if gravitation waves can be detected from inside the event horizon (can they? maybe I misunderstood), does it mean that one can "modulate" the amplitude/frequency from inside the event horizon and thus pass some information to the outside?

[@sethcatalano6352]

What about two Planck-scale spacetimes moving relative to each other? How do they length contract/time dilate if there is no smaller distance/interval possible?

[@tokajileo5928]

can you explain for us the transactional interpretation of QM (TQM) and why it may explain some weird experiments like the Afshar experiment (a video about this test alone would be great) thanks

[@sebastiangomez-wu9gh]

great ending of the video, congrats for the amazing content!!!

[@i-v-l9335]

Thanks for making this a year in a advance of PBS doing a piece on it!

[@brianp1030]

Dr. Lincoln, you mentioned in your Strong Force video 2 years ago that you were describing nuclear physics and not particle physics. You indicated that you would make another video describing it in the context of the particle world. Can you please do so?

[@fightocondria]

What year is "Don't forget! Uli's Goodbye Cake! 2:30pm" from?

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent overview video on Loop Quantum Gravity.

[@NeonsStyleHD]

So since you seem to be saying mass changes space time, by altering those limits of reality. Since velocity obviously effects length and time; does it also effect the limits of volume and area around a moving body?

[@BenjaminBjornsen]

Makes more sense than string theory, great video!

[@ThomasJr]

string theory is a dead end

[@WilliamDye-willdye]

Good video! I've wondered about background independence (3:03) since high school, but I didn't know the term until now. Spacetime is complicated, so it makes sense that it shouldn't be fundamental.

[@RenoYeh]

7:05 I think here exists an error, from what I've read they predict higher energy light travels slower.

[@scottmuck]

Is the LQG minimum length the same as the Planck Length? Or is it a different idea?

[@LegendThriller74]

Yeah it is the Planck length

[@Bayerwaldler]

I, for one, welcome the new intro music! ;-) Great content, as usual!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the quantization of space at planck length indicate a particle, like quantum of electromagnetic field indicates photon? If so, would quantum of space be graviton particle?

[@amaliaantonopoulou2644]

I love Carlo Rovelli, as a layman I avoid to make comments. But I have read 4 of his books and "The order of time " has helped me to understand how the nature of time is emergent.I had seen a lot of videos and I had read a lot of articles about quantum mechanics and about general relativity so I was somehow familiar with their concepts,so I could understand the concept of the books. I think loop quantum gravity is a very cool and realistic theory!

[@Noerfi]

Why would it imply that light with shorter wavelengths travel faster? Can someone explain?

[@TianDogg]

Thanks for this overview! I first heard about LQG in Lee Smolin's book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. I recommend it to anyone looking for a nice intro to LQG, competing quantum gravity theories, and why it's a problem in the first place.

[@MrAlRats]

Steven Weinberg has a new book coming out next month called 'Third thoughts'. Looks very interesting.

[@HoD999x]

wouldn't quantized space mean you can only jump to the "next pixel", similar to how lines are drawn on screens? over long distanced, shouldn't we be able to detect "rounding errors"?

[@evennot]

Sorry, is't the background independence as he described it stay contrary to the principle of space being isotropic? Can someone please elaborate?

[@kr-sd3ni]

wait a minute, if space and time are discrete, then how does light travel between these discrete units?does the light just teleport to next unit of space like energy levels of electrons? if it does, then what is speed? is it just the rate of how fast you can skip to next descrete unit?

[@TenzinLundrup]

He explains diffeomorphism invariance as locality. How does this reconcile with entanglement of matter, e.g. the spin of two electrons?

[@Daymjo]

I'm a little confused. The speaker says that the idea that there is a minimum length, volume and unit of time is a result of LQG, but isn't there a smallest limit on these things in GR too? Planck length, plank time?

[@MrGeek2112]

Great video Dr. Lincoln. Question: recognizing that it may be outside the parameters of LQG mathematics/theory, but if space & time are quantized, and those minimum values are constant, and spacetime is expanding, then what is happening,; are the quanta of space/time getting infinitesimally larger or are quanta being "added" onto the universe like tiny bricks or some other phenomenon?

[@brendanward2991]

Zeno: "Told ya!"

[@Holobrine]

If time is quantized, how quickly must an object be moving for you to perceive the smallest interval of time?

[@giulianobhw]

Hi Dr. Lincoln, I'm a huge fan of your channel. A very important question for me: does any theory assuming quantized spacetime imply different velocities for different wavelenghts of light? Thank you very much. Please keep the good work, is really amaizing!!!

[@giulianobhw]

Thanks for your answer, Ninja. I wasn't expecting an answer from Dr. Lincoln, but from someone into the physics world, like you.

[@nazgulius]

If u travel from point a to point b, you need to first travel half of that and then another half and so on into infinity making movment nonexistent. So does this confrms quantized space and time?

[@Valdagast]

Does this mean there's a smallest spacetime interval as well? A what's the difference between diffeomorphism invariance and locality?

[@justcrono]

love those videos and your irony :) looking for a wider perspective on the topic, we can consider loop quantum gravity and the holographic principle, leading to a 2D space distorted by mass/energy/momentum and 2 dimensions of time: one "local" (proportional to the "bending" of the local space due to momentum) and one as absolute Time of the universe, as a ikT discrete tick... in this quantised 2S+2T interpretation, gauge bosons could be seen as vibration "shifted in time" within a discrete maximum quanta of energy (as M*L^2*(1/T)^2 with M,L,T as Plank units). Elementary forces will have visible effects on the "space plane" (as Real plane of existence) as point particles (measured transforming their momentum) or as wave, if observed "free of moving" along the time plane. A pixellate L^2 plane for space and a discrete plane of Time with local reality expressed as momentum/mass/energy could fit with the latest theories that associates black hole mass to the surface... I've developed a little bit those ideas in a paper: justcrono.wordpress.com ... what do you think?

[@LionidasL10]

This video made me wonder. If space is quantized would there not have to be a binding force to hold the bits of it together? If space flows faster than C at the black hole event horizon would that set lower bounds on the energy content of the binding force? Before it the video concluded that there was no observed difference of light deflection travelling through space I was wondering if there would be a quantization of angles as well --the "Planck Angle" --a smallest possible degree.

[@giovanniguaitini7454]

One thing is not so clear. Everybody says that when many particles get squished together the gravity is so intense that the black hole is created. But what about the strong force? Shouldn't it be the dominant effect at those distances? I never heard any scientist mention this (possible) effect about the black hole? What is the reason? Thanks!! Giovanni

[@tim57243]

Does Loop Quantum Gravity predict 3 space like dimensions and one time like, or does that have to be built in? Does LQG give rise to the usual set of particles and masses, or does that have to be built in?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

With special relativity and QED / quantum field theory compatible at same velocity, can there be a quantum acceleration for quantum gravity and general relativity? How could quantum be accelerated for general relativity / gravity? Does acceleration have to come from time for quantum gravity and general relativity?

[@plexmatzke9252]

I must say I was missing an explanation for the "loop" in loop quantum gravity !??!!11!

[@thunderbolto7611]

The reason is that it is not so trivial. To find this "smallest bit", one has to define a new set of variables to represent the degrees of freedom of General Relativity. These are called "Loop Variables". Otherwise no consistent quantisation procedure is possible (or known at least).

[@BehrangK]

I have two questions: Why is it called "loop" quantum gravity? And if it is wrong does it mean that space and time are not quantized. thanks!

[@Ni999]

www.universetoday.com/50702/loop-quantum-gravity/ for the name. Follow the link Don provided in the description for a better explanation than that article. This is not the first time that quantized space and time has been proposed, that's been going on for decades. It crops up as a product of various theories that have tried to solve the singularity problems in cosmology and the problem in reconciling quantum theory and general relativity. As each of those theories hit inconsistencies without solution, the idea sort of takes a vacation until it appears in the math of the next theory. If LQG gravity is wrong, look for the next theory. If the real solution is ever found, then we'll know if quantized space and time are correct or not. If you prefer, different versions of quantized spacetime have been mathematically real but we haven't seen yet if any are physically real.

[@Keca80]

My favourite popular introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity is in the book "Reality is not what it seems" by Carlo Rovelli. (By the way, LQG is not wrong as the effect described in the end of the video *is not* a generic prediction of LQG.)

[@Keca80]

Why loops? We use loops to measure the intensity of fields! In gravity, we want to measure how much curvature is there. Think of the concrete example of the surface of the earth. Imagine you start moving from the North pole along a meridian keeping a flag in a given direction, say you have it at the beginning directed like the meridian. Then you arrive at the equator, you turn 90 degree and you move along the equator but you keep with you the flag without turning it. Then you turn again 90 degrees, you take a meridian and you go back to the North pole, always without changing the direction of your flag. But then, your are back at the same point but the flag is back pointing in a different direction: the angle between the initial and the final direction of the flag gives a measurement of the curvature. We use the same strategy to measure the curvature of spacetime, i.e. the gravitational field. This is a technique often use in quantum field theory, and the close path one consider to "compare the flag directions" are called Wilson loops.

[@yvesbulte]

How does the idea of smallest lenght and smallest time, combine with lenght contraction and time dilation ?

[@ansh47]

Photons with high energy travels faster or slower with respect to photons with lower energy in LQG?

[@NeonsStyleHD]

Since Annotations don't exist anymore in the way you are using them, could you use cards instead when you refer to an earlier video. Also like to see more like this please. Also, if you don't agree with Loop Quantum Gravity, what is your position, and is there an end in sight to unification of QM & GTR? Also, I can't find this series as a playlist. Could you also make a play list of your Quantum Mechanics videos please?

[@amanwithnohands]

How does quantized space/time jive with black holes?

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

P.S. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. A lead ball suspended on a strong chain from the ceiling of the laboratory can serve as a test body; at radius r=27,6 cm, ball mass is m=1т. According to the formula for the gravitational potential, the energy of quanta/photons of the field (photons are characterized by different parity and helicity, and it is not quite accurate to say that a photon has an integer spin equal to one) at a distance r from the center of gravity of the test body to the detector (practically on the surface of the ball) =66,3 keV. The flow: J= 0,45*10-8 quanta/сm2c; this is a measurable flux for modern world-class gamma detectors.

[@bloneric]

Many thanks Dr. Lincoln for your cool video and for spreading the good word about LQG, which resonates better in my spirit as the most probable Theory of Everything.

[@brassj67]

It makes perfect sense to me that space and time are not infinitely divisible. When you get down to the planck length then space and time fluctuations must seem so extreme that time must go backwards for a very short time sometimes. Could this explain why particle and antiparticle pairs pop in and out of existence in the vacuum of space?

[@jonathanshulman569]

great video, well done :).

[@hikingpete]

What's the basis for the assumption of Diffeomorphism Invariance?

[@constpegasus]

Incredible. Keep these videos coming!!!!

[@tom_something]

The relationship between the shininess of a surface and its roughness is a function of the wavelength of light reflecting off of it, and the "size" of irregularities in the surface. Thus we can say that light (or any wave) will interact in a predictable (specular reflection) manner when its wavelength is large compared to the resolution of irregularities, and the interactions will be more random (diffuse reflection) if the resolution of the irregularities is large compared to the wavelength of the light. Similarly, rolling a very large ball down some stairs, the large ball's path will be more predictable, as if it's rolling down a smooth surface, compared to rolling a very small ball down those same steps. If there's a limit to size, that limit is the resolution of the field, right? On par with the space between steps or the size of irregularities in a surface. This means that particles with a longer wavelength, and of course objects made with multiple particles, will behave in a "smooth way" when interacting with the field, and particles with wavelengths closer to that resolution should be... bumpy... in their behavior. Although, this would also be true if the resolution of the field were limitless, to some extent.

[@Misterlikeseverythin]

I wonder how did we calculate Mercury's precession? As far as I know full GR equations aren't solved or simulated. If someone knows a paper that uses GR for simulation it would be much appreciated!

[@user-xh9pu2wj6b]

And numerical solutions are always possible, you can just google it.

[@SuperDeadparrot]

Before you even get down to Planck scales, wouldn’t the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle come into play? How are you even going to localize something to that size?

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

From Einstein's equation's one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: фG= - (1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w) = - (1/2)[w/w(pl)]c^2. By the way, to this expression for the gravitational potential: "Containing all information about the gravitational field." (Einstein), you can come according to the classics (G), SRT ©, and De Broglie's hypothesis (h), - without GR and QM.

[@sohee7597]

I'm not a physicist nor even a scientist (I work in a fish farm lol) but your channel is super interesting!

[@FirstRisingSouI]

I came up with the idea of background independence on my own, so it's nice to see that it's being seriously explored.

[@whoknowsnubby]

have u got maths for it tho

[@fCauneau]

Thanks so much for this (one more) excellent video !! The general purpose to merge the two main blocks of modern Physics, and the methodology you describe are quite clear, OK. Just one question : I still don't understand why the Standard Model builders see the necessity to add the graviton. As long as we may understand it, and it seemd to be a purpose of Albert Einstein, GR "suppresses" the gravity as a force, using a geometrical approach, through the principle of equivalence. This was somehow similar to the case of the former "inertial" and "centrifugal" forces that vanished in classical mechanics, as they were also proven to appear depending upon the frame of reference you chose. In that sense, my question is : the day we are able to build a graviton detector, should we in position to consider that the GR principle of equivalence is no longer valid ? Because in this case, you could distinguish physically between an acceleretated frame in free space from a frame at rest in a gravity field providing the equivalent acceleration.

[@fCauneau]

OK, thanks !! (BUG SOLVED) If I understand, it's at first a problem of language, as the graviton is sometime uncorreclty presented as the intermediate boson for the gravity force. It is the boson vector for gravity, "gravity" being taken here as the reciprocal mass force / spacetime curvature effect described by the GR field equation. So it's more clear, as an accelerating vessel bends itself spacetime, it should produce gravitons even in free space and thus the GR equivalence principle should not be violated. The funny thing is that, inside the Standard Model, both gluon and graviton have those weird capacities to bend spacetime ;-)

[@petevenuti7355]

Wait a minute , you said the volume doesn't change.. I've been thinking about what it means if Lorenz contraction results in lengths less then a plank length.. now I'm thinking it's only the volume that stays constant in 4d. Since length contracts with time. Me not being a math guy excuse this rudimentary example, like how (1×0.5)x(1×0.125) is the same area as .25x.25 ? As in the fundamental unit volume is in spacetime but the distortion of spacetime is proportional so volume is preserved ? Also , if I'm getting the idea, are these 4d "pixels" expanding or increasing in number with universal expansion?

[@Jabranalibabry]

Love your vids, doc!

[@ozzymandius666]

Erik Verlinde and Leonard Susskind are doing some pretty good work on quantum gravity.

[@benjaminmillermusic]

is it possible that the reason why loop quantum gravity predicts that higher frequency photons travel faster is because of the higher number of oscillations per distance, or is this not how the wave actually works? because it would take more string to model a sinusoidal wave of high frequency for a given distance than it would for a lower frequency, so more total distance if you factor in the infinitesimally small oscillations added up. not sure if this reasoning is flawed due to inaccuracies or misleadingness in our representations of light waves.

[@jonathanjollimore7156]

What if quantum strangeness is partials retaining some kind memory of were its bin and past interactions? If information can't be destroyed then it might always know were it bin what it done before now?

[@tom_something]

Something I've been struggling with. Gravity fields are often depicted as vectors. Is that necessary? Couldn't they be depicted as relative scalars in 4D spacetime?

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

So you think gravity could be directionless? A vector is a scalar with a direction. The strength of the field is the scalar, adding the direction makes it a vector.

[@tom_something]

@@zdcyclops1lickley190 it _could_ be modeled without direction, as long as the resolution of the coordinate system is finer than anything that has to actually be affected by gravity. An inclined road has a vector quality to it. In classical physics, the ball is pushing downward onto the road due to gravity, the road pushes back against the ball at the normal angle because Newton, and the ball rolls down the hill because vector math. But if you have a coordinate system with infinite resolution, or just resolution that is more fine than the ball, the "direction" of the incline doesn't have to be a property of the road itself. Replace the inclined road with stairs of the same average slope. Adjacent stairs are adjacent coordinates in the system. The height of each stair is a scalar value. If the staircase is of infinite resolution, anything you put on that staircase will roll down it smoothly, even though there's no single point on the stairs that indicates the "slope" of the stairs. If the staircase is of finite resolution, then something different happens. A marble placed on those stairs will most likely remain at rest unless it is given a push. Even then, while marble's average behavior will mimic that of a marble on an infinite slope, on closer inspection its movements will be slightly erratic and unpredictable, but only when viewed at that tiny scale. A ball that is 20 feet in diameter will roll down the stairs almost exactly as if it were on a smooth slope. Of course, outside of classical physics, gravity is not a force, a falling object's path in space-time is a straight line, and gravity is a phenomenon that bends the coordinate system to redefine the straight lines. The question is whether or not a gravitational field could be mapped with scalars only, such that if you want to derive vector-like behavior from those scalars, you could.

[@chrissinclair4442]

Is the problem with quantum gravity equating to much quanta to gravity when quanta should more be equated to the bucket gravity is influencing? Essentially Quantum Gravity is an analog as a whole effecting (or not per the quantum effects) the digital bucket of quanta? I would look at it as the Flatland Thought Experiment. You have a particle on Flatland as a point, the quantum effect show on Flatland, but continue up as an unseen area above Flatland. The particle point is the quanta that Quantum Gravity affects.

[@TheTwick]

Is that smallest length related to the Planck Length (also, Planck time, etc.)?

[@data3419]

TheTwick yup, thats it

[@KafshakTashtak]

How did the physicists conclude that it's the smallest possible length? Can you guide me to some easy to understand sources? Thanks.

[@nutCaseBUTTERFLY]

Isn't this a description of a quantum dot?

[@jembishop3509]

No.

[@fightocondria]

A quantum voxel

[@philsturm4685]

So which comesfirst, gravity or mass. Or does spacetime dictate where mass clumps and we just see it as mass warping spacetime. Maybe we're just looking at it backwards.

[@EmanueleRossi-emashirito]

Great thanks! Prof. Rovelli says that in the equation of quantum gravity there is no time. What do you think about it? Thank you

[@StevenLeMieux]

Time is a subjective relative experience of counciousness. Their not independent their interlinked and symbiotic. Think super position.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@StevenLeMieux THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

[@frankdimeglio8216]

C4 proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.

[@vjmadhudath9482]

Can you explain causal set theory?

[@Stan_144]

The question is: how that theory would impact calculations about expanding universe as they rely on light red shift when coming from distant galaxies. LQG suggests light with different wave length will have slighly different speed in space.

[@travelservices1200]

It's almost 4 years later (sorry), and when I tried to click on the "Further reading" link, it's no longer working, at least not for me. Is there any alternative, or has the content been moved elsewhere, or what have you?

[@maxhunter3574]

What is the relationship of this with Planck units?

[@stevedaniales4695]

How does the diffeomophism idea reconcile entanglement though? Seems like the second stipulation is falsified by it.

[@cesarlip3254]

thanks for your videos, they are amazing !

[@genefulm]

Off topic. I don't get how light can transmit a force to an object. Can you make, or is there already, a video about that? On topic. Can we even measure 10^-43 seconds? How close can we get?

[@JohnVKaravitis]

Only means that you can't "grab a hold of" anything that is smaller than these limits, NOT that spacetime is quantized. Also, I believe that the difference in arrival of different wavelengths of light has been disproven.

[@birdthompson]

does Planck length imply that spacetime is granular?